|
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:56:45 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote: Have fly tippers been busy or something? What do you mean a hill? The runway is definitely not level. Clearly wasn't a problem for the RAF or the current flights that use it, why would be a problem for commercial jets? B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:38:38 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 11:08:57 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Roland Perry remarked: There's an air lane over Maidstone, Harlow, Corby, Nottingham with loads of transatlantic flights from continental Europe currently. A United flight from Paris to Chicago has just flown over my house, and I mean *right* over - on the mapping site it was within one house width. The raw position data is only accurate to +/- 0.5 NM -- |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:52:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: A fun site that. There's a Virgin flight to Barbados passing over me at the moment. A very useful site if at an airport that provides poor delay information (that means you, GVA). Neil -- Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at 12:01:07 on
Fri, 4 Nov 2011, The Other Mike remarked: A United flight from Paris to Chicago has just flown over my house, and I mean *right* over - on the mapping site it was within one house width. The raw position data is only accurate to +/- 0.5 NM Nevertheless, each flight has a fairly consistent path (it doesn't wander left and right by half a mile, but there's a definite 100m jitter at the right zoom level). And clearly there can be a systemic error, although obviously it's fun to spot a plane that purports to be directly overhead (numerous have flown past this morning in a corridor about a mile wide, mainly to the west of me). Looking at a plane landing at Stansted just now... and it's shown as about 100m too far north. Heathrow flights seem slap bang in the middle of the runway though. obRail: Now all we need is something similar for trains. -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 4, 2:19*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
obRail: Now all we need is something similar for trains. No idea if anything exists for the UK, but there is a nifty Swiss version: http://www.swisstrains.ch/ I'm not sure if it's real time or just based on the timetable (some optimists might think that for the Swiss case the two are the same, but we know better than that here). Robin |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 2011\11\04 13:55, bob wrote:
On Nov 4, 2:19 pm, Roland wrote: obRail: Now all we need is something similar for trains. No idea if anything exists for the UK, but there is a nifty Swiss version: http://www.swisstrains.ch/ I'm not sure if it's real time or just based on the timetable (some optimists might think that for the Swiss case the two are the same, but we know better than that here). What's going on between Kreuzlingen and Kreuzlingen Bernrain? |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 13:19:21 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: Looking at a plane landing at Stansted just now... and it's shown as about 100m too far north. Heathrow flights seem slap bang in the middle of the runway though. At Geneva it seems very accurate (from observation while looking out of the window at the runway). Neil -- Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 11:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:52:15 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: Regardless of what's on the ground, they routinely start to turn very soon after take-off, so as to head in the direction they need to fly (ie, to join the airway). It's not normally straight ahead. I used to live in Reading which is almost exactly due west of Heathrow. Tell me again about the planes having turned off before then. A few head west over Reading, but others turn over Windsor. It depends where they are going. So some do go straight ahead, contrary to what you said before. That was my first posting to the thread, so no I didn't say anything before. Apologies, what /was/ said before. In addition some of those that do turn will be turning north-west across London, it's a big place. What's important here is how far west of Heathrow they get, so we can compare how far west of the estuary airport the planes might turn. It's not strictly comparable, you just don't turn onto a parallel track 55kms east of the LHR track. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 13:19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:01:07 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, The Other Mike remarked: A United flight from Paris to Chicago has just flown over my house, and I mean *right* over - on the mapping site it was within one house width. The raw position data is only accurate to +/- 0.5 NM Nevertheless, each flight has a fairly consistent path (it doesn't wander left and right by half a mile, but there's a definite 100m jitter at the right zoom level). And clearly there can be a systemic error, although obviously it's fun to spot a plane that purports to be directly overhead (numerous have flown past this morning in a corridor about a mile wide, mainly to the west of me). Looking at a plane landing at Stansted just now... and it's shown as about 100m too far north. Heathrow flights seem slap bang in the middle of the runway though. obRail: Now all we need is something similar for trains. http://traintimes.org.uk/map/tube/ for TfL anyway. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at 15:22:08 on Fri, 4
Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: What's important here is how far west of Heathrow they get, so we can compare how far west of the estuary airport the planes might turn. It's not strictly comparable, you just don't turn onto a parallel track 55kms east of the LHR track. Five out of seven of the Heathrow flightpaths that were posted here (as pdfs) earlier today make quite tight turns to head north and south. Two of them head for Woodley (aka Reading suburb). There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport would be routed over central London at all. -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
|
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 15:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:22:08 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: What's important here is how far west of Heathrow they get, so we can compare how far west of the estuary airport the planes might turn. It's not strictly comparable, you just don't turn onto a parallel track 55kms east of the LHR track. Five out of seven of the Heathrow flightpaths that were posted here (as pdfs) earlier today make quite tight turns to head north and south. Two of them head for Woodley (aka Reading suburb). There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport would be routed over central London at all. There's also no reason to suppose they won't be. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
If you're going to be spending billions on interconnecting main line railways in London it might be better spent on tunnels between the existing terminii, a bit like the Germans have done in Berlin. (admitedly Berlin does have an orbital railway, but it is used for the S-Bahn and only individual sections of it for long distance trains). Actually Berlin has 2 orbital railways- the inner which was is used by the S Bahn and the outer one which was built by the DDR so that their trains from the Wester part of the DDR could go round to Lichtenberg, Karlhorst etc and avoid West Berlin. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
What's not to like? :-) Actually what's not to like is that after Cross Rail, Overground extensions, The Olympics, Thameslink 2000 (!) HS1 HS2 etc. etc. it will be yet another excuse to concentrate expenditure on the South East to the exclusion of everywhere else. And while we are travelling round up here on 2 car class 142s etc. the money would be better spent elsewhere. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at 16:59:33 on Fri, 4
Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport would be routed over central London at all. There's also no reason to suppose they won't be. To reduce the noise. -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
"Paul Rigg" wrote:
What's not to like? :-) Actually what's not to like is that after Cross Rail, Overground extensions, The Olympics, Are people from the North excluded from competing in the Olympics? I'm not happy with the Olympics either, but it wouldn't matter to me whether they were in London, Manchester or Middlesbrough. We should never have bid for them. Original cost estimate: £2.7 billion. Latest estimate: £28 billion. Thameslink 2000 (!) HS1 HS2 etc. etc. it will be yet another excuse to concentrate expenditure on the South East to the exclusion of everywhere else. But HS2 is supposed to benefit the North, not the South. Its proponents claim that it will bridge the north-south divide, and bring untold wealth to the depressed Midlands and North. There's virtually no support for it in the South East, and an awful lot of opposition. And while we are travelling round up here on 2 car class 142s etc. the money would be better spent elsewhere. Northern Rail gets the highest subsidy per passenger journey of any TOC operating on National Rail. Perhaps we should look for some savings there. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 17:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:59:33 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport would be routed over central London at all. There's also no reason to suppose they won't be. To reduce the noise. Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. That sort of depends on destination - I can't see a lot of demand for 0300 departures to many places, nor really arrivals at that sort of time. Neil -- Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 17:11, Paul Rigg wrote:
What's not to like? :-) Actually what's not to like is that after Cross Rail, Overground extensions, The Olympics, Thameslink 2000 (!) HS1 HS2 etc. etc. it will be yet another excuse to concentrate expenditure on the South East to the exclusion of everywhere else. And while we are travelling round up here on 2 car class 142s etc. the money would be better spent elsewhere. I think many people would have been extremely happy had somewhere else got the Olympics. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In article ,
Neil Williams wrote: On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. That sort of depends on destination - I can't see a lot of demand for 0300 departures to many places, nor really arrivals at that sort of time. Have you flown on Emirates? Lots of their flights transit Dubai in the wee smalls, allegedly because the weather conditions during the day can be fierce. Sam |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:13:35 +0000, Sam Wilson
wrote: Have you flown on Emirates? Nope, not as yet. Neil -- Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 18:13, Sam Wilson wrote:
In ual.net, Neil wrote: On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. That sort of depends on destination - I can't see a lot of demand for 0300 departures to many places, nor really arrivals at that sort of time. Have you flown on Emirates? Lots of their flights transit Dubai in the wee smalls, allegedly because the weather conditions during the day can be fierce. Could that be to get sensible times at the "real" start and end points? I've not been to Dubai or used Emirates, but I got an Ethiad flight home from Abu Dhabi which left at something like 02:45. It arrived in London in time for work (boo!), but a lot of people seemed to be in transit. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 17:50, Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. That sort of depends on destination - I can't see a lot of demand for 0300 departures to many places, nor really arrivals at that sort of time. Remember you are dealing with a globe. Already there have been complaints that because of the curfew at Heathrow other cities, especially in the east, get late night departures/arrivals. Also 24/7 operation gives you another 400 take-off and landing slots a day. Double that if you could actually make the double twin runway layout work. The other elephant in the room that the Halcrow/Foster plan ignores is that even if Borisport gets built it doesn't mean that Heathrow will shut down. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at 17:45:33 on Fri, 4 Nov
2011, Graeme Wall remarked: There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport would be routed over central London at all. There's also no reason to suppose they won't be. To reduce the noise. Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. That'll be for people living really close. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. With no-one living really close, and the flight paths not crossing London either. Simples. -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at
17:50:58 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Neil Williams remarked: I can't see a lot of demand for 0300 departures to many places, nor really arrivals at that sort of time. It happens in many parts of the world. And if that's the time your daily flight is on that route, you just have to fit in. -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In uk.railway Andy Breen twisted the electrons to say:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:47:12 +0000, Basil Jet wrote: On 2011\11\03 08:14, Graeme Wall wrote: I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary. The SS Richard Montgomery will get rid of the bird problem... And reduce carbon emissions from the airport at the same time. Job's a good 'un. Whilst reducing/eliminating the need for future "regeneration funding" for nearby towns? -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 11:15:32 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 21:54:07 +0000 (UTC), Andy Breen wrote: And the more wiggling about they do, the more fuel they will have to burn particularly if they have to do it just after take-off, when they're heavy with fuel. What utter ********. The quicker they can get to altitude the better from a fuel usage point of view, but they are usually climbing most of the time during a departure, that they have to fairly rapidly change their heading two or three times in a pre determined sequence is irrelevant to overall fuel burn. That's got immediate environmental costs, will add to operating costs and could make the airport unattractive for airlines operating the very long-haul routes (Japan, Australia..). It's no different to departures at many airports worldwide, you don't just take off and carry on in the same direction to your destination. You also really don't want to be manoevering at maximum weight and have an engine ingest a goose. That could lead to substantial stress in the cockpit. Better drain those reservoirs near Heathrow then. Doesn't the film of aviation fuel discourage birds from using them ? |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:07:44 -0000, "Paul Rigg"
wrote: If you're going to be spending billions on interconnecting main line railways in London it might be better spent on tunnels between the existing terminii, a bit like the Germans have done in Berlin. Unfortunately, ITYF there is now too much plumbing in the way unless you start burrowing some distance before the termini. (admitedly Berlin does have an orbital railway, but it is used for the S-Bahn and only individual sections of it for long distance trains). Actually Berlin has 2 orbital railways- the inner which was is used by the S Bahn and the outer one which was built by the DDR so that their trains from the Wester part of the DDR could go round to Lichtenberg, Karlhorst etc and avoid West Berlin. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In uk.railway Roland Perry twisted the electrons to say:
In message , at 17:50:58 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Neil Williams remarked: I can't see a lot of demand for 0300 departures to many places, nor really arrivals at that sort of time. It happens in many parts of the world. And if that's the time your daily flight is on that route, you just have to fit in. nods I've landed at Melbourne at 0400, and actually it does have it's advantages. Since there's much less traffic at that time in the morning you apparently get through immigration much faster than if you land at a civilised time. -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 19:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:45:33 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport would be routed over central London at all. There's also no reason to suppose they won't be. To reduce the noise. Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. That'll be for people living really close. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. With no-one living really close, and the flight paths not crossing London either. Simples. You are the one that is simple. There are quite a few built up areas in the South East even if you want to ignore London. Then there is the question of what happens when the winds are easterly. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at 20:13:52 on Fri, 4
Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. With no-one living really close, and the flight paths not crossing London either. Simples. You are the one that is simple. There are quite a few built up areas in the South East even if you want to ignore London. But none sufficiently close to the airport to be bothered by the noise on takeoff. Then there is the question of what happens when the winds are easterly. The sound doesn't blow that far (and the takeoffs will be across the north sea). -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. That sort of depends on destination - I can't see a lot of demand for 0300 departures to many places, nor really arrivals at that sort of time. There is huge demand for cheap charter flights to/from Gatwick, and they take off and land throughout the day and night. In summer, the airport is almost at busy at night as in the day. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:13:52 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 04/11/2011 19:21, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 17:45:33 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport would be routed over central London at all. There's also no reason to suppose they won't be. To reduce the noise. Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. That'll be for people living really close. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. With no-one living really close, and the flight paths not crossing London either. Simples. You are the one that is simple. There are quite a few built up areas in the South East even if you want to ignore London. Then there is the question of what happens when the winds are easterly. Increased wind strength also seems to have a distinct effect WRT to flattening and straightening out the incoming flight path and thus shaking a few more roofs. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 20:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:13:52 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. With no-one living really close, and the flight paths not crossing London either. Simples. You are the one that is simple. There are quite a few built up areas in the South East even if you want to ignore London. But none sufficiently close to the airport to be bothered by the noise on takeoff. Then there is the question of what happens when the winds are easterly. The sound doesn't blow that far (and the takeoffs will be across the north sea). But the approaches won't be. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at 21:18:10 on Fri, 4
Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: Then there is the question of what happens when the winds are easterly. The sound doesn't blow that far (and the takeoffs will be across the north sea). But the approaches won't be. Indeed. They'll be turning onto the runway from east of London. -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 21:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:18:10 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: Then there is the question of what happens when the winds are easterly. The sound doesn't blow that far (and the takeoffs will be across the north sea). But the approaches won't be. Indeed. They'll be turning onto the runway from east of London. Maybe. Approach tracks are generally longer than take-off tracks the glide slope being much flatter. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 04/11/2011 17:12, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:59:33 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport would be routed over central London at all. There's also no reason to suppose they won't be. To reduce the noise. Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. Why should that be a worry? If you compare the noise created by an airport now to that say 20-25 years ago then they are almost silent and getting even more quiet year on year. -- |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:47:30 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 04/11/2011 21:34, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 21:18:10 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: Then there is the question of what happens when the winds are easterly. The sound doesn't blow that far (and the takeoffs will be across the north sea). But the approaches won't be. Indeed. They'll be turning onto the runway from east of London. Maybe. Approach tracks are generally longer than take-off tracks the glide slope being much flatter. But for the vast majority of the approach the engines are on idle and thus significantly less noisy than on departure. -- |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 6, 9:37*pm, The Other Mike wrote: On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: On 04/11/2011 17:12, Roland Perry wrote: Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. *The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. Why should that be a worry? *If you compare the noise created by an airport now to that say 20-25 years ago then they are almost silent and getting even more quiet year on year. Are they ********. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 06/11/2011 21:37, The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: On 04/11/2011 17:12, Roland Perry wrote: In , at 16:59:33 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme remarked: There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport would be routed over central London at all. There's also no reason to suppose they won't be. To reduce the noise. Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7. Why should that be a worry? If you compare the noise created by an airport now to that say 20-25 years ago then they are almost silent and getting even more quiet year on year. Total nonsense. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk